Between the American Dream
by Mr.Marr
Summary: But was the American civil rights really what they seemed?


**To what extent was the Federal Government responsible for improving the status of black people in the United States in the years 1945 – 65?**

To start with, I am going to explain of the role of President Truman and his contribution to make progress to the lives of Black Americans in the United States of America. There was evidence that presidents may have only pushed for civil rights to win the "black vote". Harry S. Truman, who took over when Roosevelt succumbed, had inconsistent contribution to the rights of black civilians after 1945. For one, he did not help the FEPC in any way. There was already identified achievement with the FEPC in the northern states and cities, but Truman did not do enough to get FEPC more known to the public nor did he persuade the Congress to finance it1. Nonetheless, Truman _was_ the president, and there were other measures he took to make life better for blacks. He told black Democrats that better education for blacks would benefit the economy and hence help every American citizen. In 1946, Truman appointed a liberal civil rights committee in order to investigate violence again blacks. This was useful, as a report was published in 1947, ("To Secure These Rights") declaring the poor treatment of African Americans during the time when America was supposed to be 'protecting the world'3. Finally, in 1948, Truman supported legislation to stop lynching. His civil rights speech was presented to the Congress, and therefore on July 26, the Executive Order 9981 was issued. This Executive order granted the banning of racial discrimination in the military. It also caused the stop of segregation in the armed forces.

An example on how another president was willing to improve status for blacks was the Little Rock crisis of 1957. It meant that African Americans were getting blocked from going to the local all-white school. President Eisenhower had to interfere because of the governor (Faubus) wanted to prevent black student from enrolling at the school in Little Rock. Eisenhower managed to 'dispatch federal troops' ( /president/eisenhower/essays/biography/4) and he had to control the troops, because there was a mob of white racists calling for the desegregation of the "Central High School". Eisenhower also passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (Voting Rights of black Americans) and 1960 (Voter's registration). But there were some aspects to these Acts that showed that he wasn't really trying hard to improve life for black people. The 1957 Civil Rights Voting Act said 'individuals found guilty of preventing black Americans from registering as voters would face a fine of only $1000... or a sentence of six months in jail' ( footnote Eexcel AS History...) This was not much use, as it didn't really stop blacks from being oppressed against voting. Plus, both of Eisenhower's acts raised the amount of black voters by only 3 per cent, which was a very disappointing statistic.

Beneath the Federal Government was the Supreme Court, which had a major role in dealing with decisions (as they had the authority to check acts and see if they were constitutional or not). There were some certain cases that highlighted the Supreme Court's success. These were linked with the NACCP (National Association for the Advancement if Colored People) who usually battled their thoughts against segregation with the courts.

An early case in 1946, was Morgan vs. Virginia, when Irene Morgan, in 1944, was fined for not giving up her seat on a bus to a white man. In her defence, she said it was unconstitutional for segregation on transport, and the NAACP's lawyer Thurgood Marshall went with her to the Supreme Court. This was a success, because the court determined that segregation on the interstate buses was illegal. (footnote edexcel AS history).

The NAACP had other cases to challenge brought to the Supreme Court, and since they had listened before, they were likely to outlaw other unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court dealt with other cases in segregation, not just on transport. Education was another factor that the NAACP wanted to negotiate. The NAACP aimed for this because of the poor circumstances in which the schools were treated. They wanted to show that the separate facilities of school were unfair because the children were not being taught equally. For example, white schools were more advanced than black students, having been able to do other things that blacks weren't permitted to. Quoted by Ralph Thompson 'to see other white kids that could play baseball and things that we were denied'. Black schools had disadvantaged conditions (e.g. only one teacher) which contradicted the Plessy vs Ferguson 'separate but equal' ruling.

The Supreme Court supported Oliver Brown, who wanted his daughter to attend the white school which was a lot closer to them rather than the black school. This led on to the Brown Case. Thurgood Marshall, a lawyer, argued that black and white education should be integrated rather than equal, and he appointed professionals to argue that black people were being treated unfairly.

Also, black student Heman Sweatt wasn't let in the University of Texas Law because the Texan education system was segregated. (footnote Edexcel As history). Together, the NAACP argued against both rulings (Sweatt V. Painter, 1950, and the Brown Case, 1950) and the Supreme Court took to their side, and the University of Texan Law school had to allow entry to Sweatt. As for the Vs. Board of Education of Topeka, it was harder for de facto to be enforced because of the public reaction.

Earl Warren, who was made the chief judge by President Eisenhower, convinced the members of the Supreme Court to rule against segregation. This decision, made by the Supreme Court, showed that they had strong support of the civil rights movement. They said that segregation was not acceptable because it had a'negative effect on black people' (Edexcel #AS history page 28.) But despite the Supreme Courts willingness to co-operate with protest groups (The NAACP), there was still resistance to integration in education. The White Citizen's Council was one example due to the results of the Brown case. They did not believe that integration should begin and they wanted to elect politicians who backed their points. Even president Eisenhower gave negative criticism on the Brown case. He said that legislation wouldn't change the 'hearts' of the southern racists, and that the case didn't help, but just aggravated the white citizens of USA. Regarding Earl Warren, he regretted having chosen him as the Chief Justice of the Court, quoting 'the biggest damned fool mistake I ever made'. (footnote wnet/supremecourt/democracy/robes_ )

It was probably not the Federal Government who did up to the maximum to ensure that black people were being treated fairly in USA. The factors that principally led to progress were the ideas of Martin Luther King and his non-violent methods into gaining liberty for black Americans. King's tactics of direct action, such as the Montgomery bus Boycott was important for the Civil Rights Movement because it showed that the black community could be encouraged to take actions themselves. It especially got media attention, which was crucial, as it got worldwide consideration on how unjustified the American rulings were.

Although King's campaigns proved to be effective, not all of them attained good outcome. Examples were the Albany Movement (1961-62) and the Selma Campaign (1965). However, the Selma Campaign managed to at least gradually work out. It was a march from Selma (Alabama) to Montgomery, done because of the appalling proportion of registered black voters in Selma, which was 1%. The march started out uneasily, but ended up for the better because the number of marchers had  
>grown by over 200% by the 4th day, despite the campaign being advised against by President Kennedy. This unsupportive act from the president showed that King's ideas were stronger than the government as the results of the Selma campaign 'led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965' (edexel page 45).<p>

Lastly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in my opinion, was one of the factors that contributed to the beginning of the end of the Civil Rights Movement. This Act, passed by Lyndon B Johnson, forbade segregation in voter registration, motels, restaurants etc. ( Q/What_did_the_Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964_do) These later acts affirmed that the federal government responded to the demands of protest groups obligingly to guarantee the enforcing of laws.

In conclusion, the Federal Government did a lot to try and accomplish rights for black citizens. But there were other factors who pressurised them (especially to the Supreme Court) for better conditions in America. Although there was massive resistance to desegregation by whites (Klansmen killed 3 Civil rights workers), the Congress was strongly in favour of the Civil Rights Act; in fact, 73% of senators were in agreement to this (edexcel page 54). Nevertheless, some presidents were more reluctant to support than others, in spite of having substantial effect to the laws. It was, actually, the presidents who passed the Acts, but leaders such as Martin Luther King persuaded them to change the laws through their protests to make integration work. So, equally, the Federal Government and (boycotters, direct action  
>etc.) brought on positive development to Civil Rights in America.<p> 


End file.
